Talk:Intentional programming

Editing Model, Not Programming Model

This article doesn't really seem to be covering what the thing actually is. It's a CAD program for code, with no ramifications for runtime.

Looks to me Intentional Programming is storing code in a graph database, and an editor for that. Variables and operators have UUID naming, which it hides from you. It is a database so no whitespace, and no need to pair open and close brackets because it's just an abstract syntax tree. A YouTube video shows logic operators in C rendering as circuits, or code blocks as boxes.

Is there really any other idea in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.62.149 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What book?

"A very good overview of intentional programming is given in the Chapter 11 of the book [2]." What's that mean? What's 'the book'? Yes, I can get the title from the footnote, but there's some context missing for that sentence. 124.171.79.68 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Jac

No response, so I changed the sentence. 124.171.109.199 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Jac

I'd go so far as to say that this is pure publicity for the book in question. I seriously question the relevance. Is this the only book giving an overview? Is it in any way special? IMHO this sentence is spam and should be deleted. 82.95.90.204 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Java class that, when saved to the file WhichI.java, will compile and illustrate the point being made correctly.

 public class WhichI {
   public static String i = "am canadian";
   public static void main(String[] args) {
     for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
       System.out.println(i);
     }
     System.out.println(i);
   }
 }

I think that the none functioning example in the text should be replaced with this one.

---

Why is this in Wikipedia? The only "user" of Intentional Programming that I know of is Simonyi's company. This is not an accepted technology or technique, only an unproven idea for which Simonyi is known for in arcane software engineering circles.

I disagree. There are at least 10 researchers beside myself around the world that I know would like this page to stay. This page is a good place to accumulate knowledge about IP. I know, intentional programming might seem weird and proprietary to some, but Wikipedia should anyway provide information to those who need it, regardless how geeky this information might seem to others. And there are really people like me with research interests that closely watch IntentSoft and other developments, like LOP etc. Thanks. KirillOsenkov 09:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there must be at least 11 researchers who would like this page to stay. Feraudyh 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this page is being used mainly to talk up a questionable company (I recently received a buzzword-filled recruitment email linking to this page and not much else). Darklink259 11:16, 17 February 2015

---

This entry makes multiple references to "the video", but doesn’t say what or where this video is or how to view it.

--- if you look at the editing history, the link to the video was removed since it didn't work anymore. this page is in serious need of an overhaul!

Warning

This page hardly encapsulates the concept of Intentional Programming. For a proper treatment, follow the links in the External Links section and read anything by Charles Simonyi.

Page name

The page is now called "Intentional Programming". Shouldn't it be "Intentional programming" since the term isn't a proper noun (and since in Wikipedia the first letter must be capitalized)? —Ben FrantzDale 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Salix alba (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Most google hits are for Intentional Programming, and it is not a generic noun in the same way functional programming is - it's a very unusual, specific set of tools and ideas peculiar to one guy and his followers and companies. --Gwern (contribs) 19:37 9 January 2007 (GMT)

Well, we need to settle on whether or not it's a proper noun, and stick to one or the other. When I found the article, the title was "Intentional Programming", but the text used "intentional programming" at the top. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

The page has a category of Integrated development environments. I can see a reference to them, but intentional programming is a paragigm and isn't in itself an IDE. Is this category relevant for this page? Kiore 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

I feel the article is somewhat NPOV. For instance in the introduction, where we read

"intentional programming is a collection of concepts which enable software source code

to reflect the precise information, called intention, which programmers had in mind

when conceiving their work."

This sounds like a marketing claim, more than an undisputable fact.

--User:Ketil

No. It is a definition. A marketing claim would be if some company said "My product is intentional programming". Of course their product could be pure garbage... This page is a definition, and it does not (or should not) assert that the instantiations of that idea are perfect representations of programmer intent. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Python

It actually sounds a lot like what Python achieves and focuses on as a programming language.

210.215.140.180 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

An ad for "Intentional Software"?

This article reads like an ad for Charles Simonyi's company, Intentional Software. Almost all of the citations are either works by Mr. Simonyi or interviews with Mr. Simonyi.

Ozymandias42 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Technology Review links

The old paginated links for Technology Review were missing, and the Wayback Machine excludes its copy. I found where the same article is posted now (it contains the quote) and updated+archived the links, but it does mess up the dating on some of the references: it sounds like it was originally published in two parts on January 8 and 9, the currently online version says January 1. So perhaps instead of what I did the old dead links should have been kept and the new one should be added as an alternative? Or the dates should be changed the Jan 1? Agashlin (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)